View Single Post
Old 09-01-2019, 08:17 PM
Gambeir's Avatar
Gambeir Gambeir is offline
Gold Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Peoples republic of Washington
Posts: 1,004
Originally Posted by socratus View Post
Silver Member
Your pompous post (from 3rd dimension) looks like a very scientific subject . . .
. . . but '' the loss of inertia '' obeys two (2) simple laws - Newton's and Einstein's
a) Newton's inertia:
Every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in
a straight line unless compelled to change its state by
the action of an EXTERNAL force.

b) Einstein's inertia
''Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon its Energy Content?”
Yes, the inertial movement of quantum particle does indeed
depends upon ITS energy content: E=Mc^2.
Why you think the material I posted was offensive might be how you're perceiving the information. I really cannot understand the complaint. It wasn't intended to be offending and I said I'd remove it if you asked. I'm always willing to re-evaluate my thinking if I can see the error and I certainly don't want to stay stupid if that's what the issue is and I'm just not seeing it.

I realize you're trying to explain why this topic cannot be explained logically, and what I see is another energy field, call it quantum if you like, and that field of energy imposes itself on ours like a shadow does upon pavement. Now is that or is it not the basic idea behind Quantum Physics?

You're saying that the material I posted is somehow outside of the behavior of inertia because why? You have not made a point with these arguments about the behavior of inertia. I understand what the behavior is supposed to be but why you see that the material is acting outside of those definitions is what I cannot understand. I therefore think the issue is one of how you're perceiving the information supplied.
"The past is now part of my future, the present is well out of hand." Joy Divison "Heart and Soul LP."

Last edited by Gambeir; 09-01-2019 at 08:22 PM.
Reply With Quote